Posted on 09/01/2006 8:50:13 AM PDT by van_erwin
The two Fox News staffers who were kidnapped in Gaza earlier this month were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint, according to news reports. Fox's Steve Centanni said on Wednesday that he didn't know if he was officially a Muslim—"I don't know enough about Islam to know if it was official, or recognized." Well, is he a Muslim, or isn't he?
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
No. You have to submit voluntarily.
But don't expect terrorists to honor that.
Christ says whoever will not recognize him on Earth, Christ will not recognize before His Father.
"The question is simply "is it worth it?" not "is it possible?" In order for me to say it's worth it I would have to see a greater benefit to someone. I don't. Start hacking! ; )"
I see a greater benefit to going ahead and saying the coerced lines on video: It exposes the stupidity, the hypocrisy, the utter evil of Islam. The vast majority of people in the world know that the words spoken by the captured men are not real statements of belief. I don't believe their words were harmful to anyone at all, least of all to themselves. To the contrary, they help embolden people to stand up against the scourge of Islam.
There is a difference between speaking from the heart, and speaking words like an automaton to free oneself.
If it hasn't been posted already, Robert Spencer already answered this question.
"Journalists' Forced Conversion Not Contrary to Islam"
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16748
Never assumed that he was. I only know that he converted to islam under threat of death, and most if not all muslims believe that is binding. If he believes he converted, than he's now a muslim. If he doesn't believe he converted, then he has to work out those messy little details with his new bretheren.
I still want to know what Ibrahim Hooper and CAIR have to say about this.
You have no idea what I'd do, nor do I. It's not about being a Christian or any other faith. It's about making a contract under duress at the hands of a gang of thugs, and that contract is supposedly binding under penalty of death.
Sure, I'd probably save my skin so I can even out the odds later, but let's press the religion of peace and its official spokespeople to comment on this, so the whole world knows what they're really about.
I see no great gain to be had in bolstering rational arguments against completely irrational fanatic elitists while creating so much confusion. Those who can discern the rational from the irrational don't really need any further proof. Those who can't are a little beyond the reach of rational arguments however well-backed. The net gain would be a hair above zero while the damage would reverberate long into the future.
Treatise on fanaticism. scroll down
Sorry, CTMRIop, no sale here. Ragheads, pull the trigger.
"The fact that I have seen so many people here on FR cheerfully proclaiming that they would adhere to Islam at the mere threat of torture is very depressing. And these journalists weren't even tortured - they were mistreated and afraid, but nothing had really been done to them at that point."
I think you're exaggerating. I've read a lot of these posts, and mostly people are saying that after weeks of being held under duress, and after torture, they can understand people saying things that denounce America, Christ, or whatever.
I've never stated that I would be banging down the terrorists door to make a tape. I'm talking about extreme duress. I thought that was obvious, but if it wasn't I'm clearing that up now.
The effects of actions are inevitable and the effect of that is to deepen his attachment to body. One way or another his mind will separate from his body someday and a deeper attachment to his body will create more mental suffering at that time. It doesn't matter that he thinks his mind will end when his body dies. That thought won't alter reality it will just make it harder to deal with.
I suppose, for the secular humanist atheist, the immediate gratification of desire would outweigh the thought of deeper suffering in the future. But that's the choice and it's his to make. : )
I was once held up by two mens with rifles pointed at my head. It is something you never forget.
Seems like the real test here is, is he going to mosque, taking instruction, you know, serving that "god."
Okay. I agree with you, if it would do that do you to say mere words.
It would not do that to me (as far as I can tell, not actually being kidnapped and held at the moment). I believe I would be able to say the words without them having any true meaning for me. Just like I can type "I love to kill kittens." There, that was easy. It didn't hurt anyone or kill any kittens, nor do I believe it caused confusion to my psyche, to the universe, or to anything else.
"Even if he doesn't mean it, doesn't believe in Allah and Islam, he has still abdicated dominion of his mind for the sake of his body."
I reject this notion. It's saying words, nothing more. In what way does it abdicate dominion of his mind to simply parrot the chicken scratchings a madman wants him to utter?
Do you believe that actors who play murderers, or immoral people, end up harming their minds/souls/whatever by acting out scenes where they have to do and say horrible things? If I play a psycho and have to utter the line "God is dead." or "I am God and I'm going to rip you apart." or the like - so what? It's a MOVIE. It's dialogue.
Think of making the video for the captors as acting, cuz that's what it really is. It's pretend. The mind is smart and can distinguish.
It has nothing to do with the saying of words or what words are said. It comes down to intent. Whatever you do if your intent is to save your bodily life at the expense of denying your most deeply and firmly held understanding of reality there will be a negative effect on your mind that can't be changed by telling yourself you won't let it. Mind doesn't work that way. That's why it would even negatively effect an atheist. There is no loophole out of reality.
I think the real test is whether or not he had his fingers crossed behind his back...:-)
I thought that, too, but on the video, both hands were in front of him.
Go out to the best pit B-B-Q in town. Order THE biggest shredded pork sandwhich on the menu. Chow it down, with a few beers. If you do not get hit by lightning when you walk out, then you're okay...
I expained that with this:
...the effect of that is to deepen his attachment to body. One way or another his mind will separate from his body someday and a deeper attachment to his body will create more mental suffering at that time.
I reject this notion. It's saying words, nothing more.
I also addressed that "loophole" too:
It doesn't matter that he thinks his mind will end when his body dies. That thought won't alter reality it will just make it harder to deal with.
Think of making the video for the captors as acting, cuz that's what it really is. It's pretend.
That's an interesting reality you have there. If you pretend that the jihadis aren't really threatening to kill you then it isn't real?
"Whatever you do if your intent is to save your bodily life at the expense of denying your most deeply and firmly held understanding of reality there will be a negative effect on your mind that can't be changed by telling yourself you won't let it."
Okay, you've gotten to the nougatty core of our disagreement. When you say "...at the expense of denying your most deeply and firmly held understanding. . ." - THAT is where we break off. I can say "PRAISE ALLAH" or whatever other hokum a psycho with a gun wants me to say, but I am not denying anything. It's play words - like I'm in a play on stage. I know I don't mean it, my mind knows I don't mean it. I might as well be saying "Blah blah blah blah blah." It's like reading a script aloud, except this script lets you get out of the islamofacsist's hands and go back to helping rid the world of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.